Throat Cuts

[Michael W Richards]

Excited about your new book: The World According To Big Mikey R (I'm Always Right You Know)

And I of yours...How to kill someone with a knife while they resist without making a sound. Sounds like great fiction.

[Michael W Richards]

Wasn't it Blackwell who described the scenario as Liz being pulled backwards as the throat was cut?
So, the position of the killer is what, front, side or rear?
If the throat was slashed as the body was falling, it is likely passing through different phases, neither one nor the other.

Blackwell suggested she was grabbed by her scarf, from behind, twisted it, pulled and slide a knife across her throat..perhaps as she fell. The corresponding cut marks on the scarf led him to that conclusion. That indicates the cut was made while the victim faced the other way.

[Scott Nelson]

I think we may have Liz and Catherine cut from behind and Annie cut from the front.

Agree. Liz and Catherine were cut from behind -- possibly laying on their side or from a sitting position. Annie was cut lying on her back

[Aethelwulf]

And I of yours...How to kill someone with a knife while they resist without making a sound. Sounds like great fiction.

Cheers Mike I'll leave you to croon over your reflection

[Fleetwood Mac]

must speculate how and why unrelated modern analysis can be securely applied to five century old murder cases which are lacking in medical details.

That's their experience of studying various murders spanning decades, i.e. cuts from the front and from behind differ in terms of the nature of the wound.

In the case of Eddowes, Dr Brown was careful to notice the lack of blood on bricks or pavement around, neither down the front of her clothes, nothing on the front of her jacket. It is clear Dr Brown was alluding to the fact she was not upright when her throat was cut - no arterial spray, which means her throat was cut while she was on her back, any arterial spray is directed towards the ground beside the body, being cut from left to right.

Well, here's another interesting thing:

From the OP:

Of those two methods, cutting a person’s throat from behind is the most common. The head is pulled back, and the knife is then drawn across it. The knife is drawn across the neck, from left to right by a right-handed assailant and from right to left by a left-handed individual [6]. The wound inflicted deepening at the beginning and then tails off at the opposite side of the neck [8].

The homicidal cut throat injuries inflicted from behind are usually longer. They usually start below the ear, runs obliquely downward and medially, then straight across the midline of the neck, and ends on the opposite side of the neck, lower than its point of origination [6].

Not only is Catherine's wound deepest at the point of incision and tails off, it is also lower on the opposite of the neck than its point of origin.

I find that interesting. It's not a bad parallel at all.

And, what I find even more interesting is that Liz's and Catherine's wounds were similar and Annie is the odd man out.

In terms of the blood aspect, cutting the carotid artery is rapid, it cuts off blood flow to the brain and because it's fast the blood flow might not be what you expect, e.g. when the veins are severed there is a lot more in the way of blood. And then of course, where the windpipe is cut it may drain the blood straight into the lungs.

I think I'll have a look 'round the internet to see what I can find on blood flow and what have you, but in the meantime, leaving blood flow aside; do you not find it interesting that Catherine's and Liz's wounds were similar and Annie's was very different? Do you not find it interesting that Catherine's wound is very similar to what those experienced modern day pathologists would expect to see from a cut throat where the perpetrator is stood behind the victim?

[Wickerman]

Agree. Liz and Catherine were cut from behind -- possibly laying on their side or from a sitting position. Annie was cut lying on her back

The cut to Annie's throat ran around her neck in a spiral. How do you do that if she is on her back?

[Trevor Marriott]

That's their experience of studying various murders spanning decades, i.e. cuts from the front and from behind differ in terms of the nature of the wound.



Well, here's another interesting thing:

From the OP:

Of those two methods, cutting a person’s throat from behind is the most common. The head is pulled back, and the knife is then drawn across it. The knife is drawn across the neck, from left to right by a right-handed assailant and from right to left by a left-handed individual [6]. The wound inflicted deepening at the beginning and then tails off at the opposite side of the neck [8].

The homicidal cut throat injuries inflicted from behind are usually longer. They usually start below the ear, runs obliquely downward and medially, then straight across the midline of the neck, and ends on the opposite side of the neck, lower than its point of origination [6].

Not only is Catherine's wound deepest at the point of incision and tails off, it is also lower on the opposite of the neck than its point of origin.

I find that interesting. It's not a bad parallel at all.

And, what I find even more interesting is that Liz's and Catherine's wounds were similar and Annie is the odd man out.

In terms of the blood aspect, cutting the carotid artery is rapid, it cuts off blood flow to the brain and because it's fast the blood flow might not be what you expect, e.g. when the veins are severed there is a lot more in the way of blood. And then of course, where the windpipe is cut it may drain the blood straight into the lungs.

I think I'll have a look 'round the internet to see what I can find on blood flow and what have you, but in the meantime, leaving blood flow aside; do you not find it interesting that Catherine's and Liz's wounds were similar and Annie's was very different? Do you not find it interesting that Catherine's wound is very similar to what those experienced modern day pathologists would expect to see from a cut throat where the perpetrator is stood behind the victim?

I previously asked Dr Biggs a forensic pathologist two specific questions regarding these issues the questions and his replies are set out below

Q. Evidence from the crime scenes seems to show a distinct lack of arterial blood spray. Now given the throats were cut, and in some cases, the carotid arteries were severed is there any explanation for the absence of arterial spray?

A. Blood loss could have been great if major neck vessels were severed. It is possible for much of the bleeding to remain within the body, though, so it would not necessarily result in a large volume of blood being visible externally. The lack of documented arterial blood patterns is not surprising as, despite being common in textbooks; arterial spurting is actually quite uncommon ‘in the wild’. Arteries, even large ones, usually go into acute spasms when cut, providing very effective control of bleeding (at least initially). The large arteries in the neck are quite well ‘hidden’ behind muscles and other structures, so they can be missed by even very extensive cuts to the neck. Also, even if cut, the initial ‘spray’ is blocked by the surrounding structures such that blood either remains inside the body or simply gushes/flows / drips out of the external skin hole rather than spurting.

Q. The doctors in their reports offer opinions as to in which position the killer was with the victims when carrying out the murders. Are these opinions reliable or simply guesswork?

A.In answer to your question, it is impossible to say with certainty how the wounds were inflicted in terms of ‘reconstructing’ events from the appearance of wounds. This is something that used to be quite ‘popular’ even up until relatively late on in the 20th century, with pathologists stating confidently that a left-handed dwarf with a limp inflicted the injury from behind using a specific knife, etc. Nowadays it is accepted that there is so much variation that in such cases, apart from a few ‘extreme’ scenarios that can be more-or-less excluded, just about anything is possible.

So in other words, the killer could have been behind the victim (with them both standing), or he (or she!) could have been ‘above’ the victim (kneeling, squatting, crouched, lying, stooping...) whilst she lay upon the ground (+/- prior strangling). Or it could have happened during a highly dynamic struggle, with all manners of grappling, twisting and fortuitous slashing going on. Only persons present at the time really know what went on (and we can’t ask them!), and nobody can be certain about a ‘reconstruction’ now based on photos / medical records. If several envisaged scenarios are actually ‘possible’, then nobody can argue in favour of a particular one any more than another.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fleetwood Mac]

The cut to Annie's throat ran around her neck in a spiral. How do you do that if she is on her back?

Just on Annie and a potentially blunt knife:

When Dr Phillips said: "jagged", it simply meant that the skin was torn. We see jagged wounds on all of the victims at different parts of their bodies, Liz excepted.

This isn't a result of a blunt knife, but more the motion of the knife. I'd say the torn skin was caused by the knife being dragged across Annie's throat, dragging the knife is known to cause a laceration (a jagged wound).

As opposed to Liz and Catherine which was more like a clean swipe and a quicker motion.

That would suggest to me either:

1) Annie was incapacitated and as Dr Phillips stated, her chin was held up. The murderer slowly dragged the knife across her throat. Liz and Catherine weren't incapacitated, which demanded a clean, quick sweep of the knife to kill them; and that would have been from behind.

or

2) They were all incapacitated, but Liz and Catherine were cut from behind, and simply the motion of the knife, i.e. dragged or otherwise; was a result of the position of the murderer. It would be pretty difficult to achieve that clean, quick swipe when positioned at the front with the victim lying on her back. Obviously, from behind and with there being no obstacle at the back of the head, you have the space to reach around with the knife and quickly pull your arm across; with nothing inhibiting your arm movement.

This is where Dr Phillips' 'short shoe-makers' knife' comes in. It was built upon the premise that Liz was lying on her back on the ground, and a long-bladed knife would have been impeded by the ground, particularly in achieving the type of clean cut he observed from ear to ear. Hence a short knife was more likely.

I think he had that wrong and Liz wasn't lying on her back at all (when cut).

[Fleetwood Mac]

I previously asked Dr Biggs a forensic pathologist two specific questions regarding these issues the questions and his replies are set out below

Q. Evidence from the crime scenes seems to show a distinct lack of arterial blood spray. Now given the throats were cut, and in some cases, the carotid arteries were severed is there any explanation for the absence of arterial spray?

A. Blood loss could have been great if major neck vessels were severed. It is possible for much of the bleeding to remain within the body, though, so it would not necessarily result in a large volume of blood being visible externally. The lack of documented arterial blood patterns is not surprising as, despite being common in textbooks; arterial spurting is actually quite uncommon ‘in the wild’. Arteries, even large ones, usually go into acute spasms when cut, providing very effective control of bleeding (at least initially). The large arteries in the neck are quite well ‘hidden’ behind muscles and other structures, so they can be missed by even very extensive cuts to the neck. Also, even if cut, the initial ‘spray’ is blocked by the surrounding structures such that blood either remains inside the body or simply gushes/flows / drips out of the external skin hole rather than spurting.

Q. The doctors in their reports offer opinions as to in which position the killer was with the victims when carrying out the murders. Are these opinions reliable or simply guesswork?

A.In answer to your question, it is impossible to say with certainty how the wounds were inflicted in terms of ‘reconstructing’ events from the appearance of wounds. This is something that used to be quite ‘popular’ even up until relatively late on in the 20th century, with pathologists stating confidently that a left-handed dwarf with a limp inflicted the injury from behind using a specific knife, etc. Nowadays it is accepted that there is so much variation that in such cases, apart from a few ‘extreme’ scenarios that can be more-or-less excluded, just about anything is possible.

So in other words, the killer could have been behind the victim (with them both standing), or he (or she!) could have been ‘above’ the victim (kneeling, squatting, crouched, lying, stooping...) whilst she lay upon the ground (+/- prior strangling). Or it could have happened during a highly dynamic struggle, with all manners of grappling, twisting and fortuitous slashing going on. Only persons present at the time really know what went on (and we can’t ask them!), and nobody can be certain about a ‘reconstruction’ now based on photos / medical records. If several envisaged scenarios are actually ‘possible’, then nobody can argue in favour of a particular one any more than another.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

From reading around, I'm quickly learning that what we imagine with little experience is not necessarily what happens in reality, Trevor.

I'm not in any way diminishing Dr Biggs' credentials, but his response to your 'position' question doesn't say very much except that we can't say with certainty, which is to be expected.

Has Dr Biggs read the case notes? The below, which I've copied from your post, suggests he hasn't:

Or it could have happened during a highly dynamic struggle, with all manners of grappling, twisting and fortuitous slashing going on.

Which is a shame because with his experience, something very interesting may have caught his attention.

[Trevor Marriott]

From reading around, I'm quickly learning that what we imagine with little experience is not necessarily what happens in reality, Trevor.

I'm not in any way diminishing Dr Biggs' credentials, but his response to your 'position' question doesn't say very much except that we can't say with certainty, which is to be expected.

Has Dr Biggs read the case notes? The below, which I've copied from your post, suggests he hasn't:

Or it could have happened during a highly dynamic struggle, with all manners of grappling, twisting and fortuitous slashing going on.

Which is a shame because with his experience, something very interesting may have caught his attention.

His professional and medical answer concludes that it cannot be determined as to how the throats were cut, but does explain the possible absence of arterial blood spray.

I remind you of one of his answers

"A.In answer to your question, it is impossible to say with certainty how the wounds were inflicted in terms of ‘reconstructing’ events from the appearance of wounds. This is something that used to be quite ‘popular’ even up until relatively late on in the 20th century, with pathologists stating confidently that a left-handed dwarf with a limp inflicted the injury from behind using a specific knife, etc. Nowadays it is accepted that there is so much variation that in such cases, apart from a few ‘extreme’ scenarios that can be more-or-less excluded, just about anything is possible.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fleetwood Mac]

His professional and medical answer concludes that it cannot be determined as to how the throats were cut, but does explain the possible absence of arterial blood spray.

I remind you of one of his answers

"A.In answer to your question, it is impossible to say with certainty how the wounds were inflicted in terms of ‘reconstructing’ events from the appearance of wounds. This is something that used to be quite ‘popular’ even up until relatively late on in the 20th century, with pathologists stating confidently that a left-handed dwarf with a limp inflicted the injury from behind using a specific knife, etc. Nowadays it is accepted that there is so much variation that in such cases, apart from a few ‘extreme’ scenarios that can be more-or-less excluded, just about anything is possible.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You've simply repeated the same thing, Trevor.

What I asked was: did Dr Biggs read the case notes or are these general answers to general questions?

This part of your post suggests he didn't read them, or he was talking of the entire mutilation as opposed to specifically the cut throats:

Or it could have happened during a highly dynamic struggle, with all manners of grappling, twisting and fortuitous slashing going on.

Even then, when Dr Biggs says 'anything is possible' and 'it is impossible to say with certainty', he is not shining any light on the matter. We know that.

What would be useful is Dr Biggs reading the case notes, and suggesting why Annie had an entirely different throat wound to Liz and Catherine. Nobody would expect him to say 'with certainty'.

[Trevor Marriott]

You've simply repeated the same thing, Trevor.

What I asked was: did Dr Biggs read the case notes or are these general answers to general questions?

This part of your post suggests he didn't read them, or he was talking of the entire mutilation as opposed to specifically the cut throats:

Or it could have happened during a highly dynamic struggle, with all manners of grappling, twisting and fortuitous slashing going on.

Even then, when Dr Biggs says 'anything is possible' and 'it is impossible to say with certainty', he is not shining any light on the matter. We know that.

What would be useful is Dr Biggs reading the case notes, and suggesting why Annie had an entirely different throat wound to Liz and Catherine. Nobody would expect him to say 'with certainty'.

I believe his answer is quite clear and specific which you clearly don't understand

You clearly have your own agenda on this topic

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fleetwood Mac]

I believe his answer is quite clear and specific which you clearly don't understand

You clearly have your own agenda on this topic

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Fair enough, Trevor.

I'd say a former policeman should know to not accept general statements at face value.

Dr Biggs stated this:

Or it could have happened during a highly dynamic struggle, with all manners of grappling, twisting and fortuitous slashing going on.

Which means he doesn't actually know anything about the nature of the throat wounds, or his answer to your question is related to the entire mutilation series.

You seem to have accepted that this tells the story of the throat wounds in some rigid, inflexible manner; when in fact it doesn't at all for obvious reasons.

A better question to Dr Biggs would have been: why is the nature of Liz's and Catherine's throat wound similar, and Annie's very different? and here are the case notes for you to have a look at.

Anyway Trevor, I'd rather not go 'round in a pointless tit-for-tat cycle of verbal violence, and so feel free to claim my questioning is due to having an 'agenda'.

And leave it there.

[Elamarna]

That's their experience of studying various murders spanning decades, i.e. cuts from the front and from behind differ in terms of the nature of the wound.



Well, here's another interesting thing:

From the OP:

Of those two methods, cutting a person’s throat from behind is the most common. The head is pulled back, and the knife is then drawn across it. The knife is drawn across the neck, from left to right by a right-handed assailant and from right to left by a left-handed individual [6]. The wound inflicted deepening at the beginning and then tails off at the opposite side of the neck [8].

The homicidal cut throat injuries inflicted from behind are usually longer. They usually start below the ear, runs obliquely downward and medially, then straight across the midline of the neck, and ends on the opposite side of the neck, lower than its point of origination [6].

Not only is Catherine's wound deepest at the point of incision and tails off, it is also lower on the opposite of the neck than its point of origin.

I find that interesting. It's not a bad parallel at all.

And, what I find even more interesting is that Liz's and Catherine's wounds were similar and Annie is the odd man out.

In terms of the blood aspect, cutting the carotid artery is rapid, it cuts off blood flow to the brain and because it's fast the blood flow might not be what you expect, e.g. when the veins are severed there is a lot more in the way of blood. And then of course, where the windpipe is cut it may drain the blood straight into the lungs.

I think I'll have a look 'round the internet to see what I can find on blood flow and what have you, but in the meantime, leaving blood flow aside; do you not find it interesting that Catherine's and Liz's wounds were similar and Annie's was very different? Do you not find it interesting that Catherine's wound is very similar to what those experienced modern day pathologists would expect to see from a cut throat where the perpetrator is stood behind the victim?

I will try and save you some time on blood flow, it's covered in great depth in my book. With references to the medical/scientific papers.

However, there is also a recent thread on here where Jeff Hamm and pooled resources so to speak and came up with some in depth figures

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/suspects/lechmere-cross-charles/9467-charles-lechmere-prototypical-life-of-a-serial-killer?p=814819#post814819

Up to around post #980.

Hope that saves you some searching.


Steve

[Michael W Richards]

I think he had that wrong and Liz wasn't lying on her back at all (when cut).

I believe your correct, and so was Blackwell.